• From: "Anderson, John" <John@B...>
• To: 'Leigh Dodds' <ldodds@i...>, xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:24:42 +0200

Given some of the things I've heard said about namespaces and the general confusion about some of their more arcane qualities, three cheers.

It may not be accurate, but at least it is understandable. It doesn't contain the term "dereference" even once. Or "disambiguation".

Mind you, it seems to assume RDDL as a "standard" (let's not start that again), so maybe the grassroots thing works.

Rgds,

John

<WaitForFlame/>

-----Original Message-----
From: Leigh Dodds [mailto:ldodds@i...]
Sent: 15 August 2001 19:22
To: xml-dev
Subject: Namespaces Defined

...or not:

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci213711,00.html

Its no wonder there's confusion.

L.

--
Leigh Dodds, Research Group, ingenta | "Pluralitas non est ponenda
http://weblogs.userland.com/eclectic |    sine necessitate"
http://www.xml.com/pub/xmldeviant    |     -- William of Ockham

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>

• Prev by Date: Re: Conversion between table models
• Next by Date: empty content
• Previous by thread: RE: Namespaces Defined
• Next by thread: RE: Namespaces Defined
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread